Bloom v. Ic System Inc’s Empirical Analysis
972 F.2d 1067 · 1992
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 17 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP (2009), Cushman v. Trans Union Corp. (1997)
17 federal appellate · 17 district · 3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Zimmerman v. HBO Affiliate Group · Tower v. Moss · Thorns v. Sundance Properties · 753 F. Supp. 314 - Bloom v. I.C. System, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is defined in the FDCPA as: 5 any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. 6 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692a(5). 7 The case law interpreting this section of the FDCPA is sparse. At least two courts of appeals, however, have held that the type of”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]o determine whether the transaction was primarily consumer or commercial in nature,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Plaintiff] correctly argues that given the small number of cases interpreting the term “debt” under the FDCPA, courts in other jurisdictions have looked for guidance to cases interpreting analogous provisions of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 to 1693r, such as the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). See Zimmerman v. HBO Affiliate Group, 834 F.2d 1163, 1168 (3rd Cir.1987). When classifying a loan, courts typically “examine the transaction as a whole,” paying particular attention to “the purpose for which the credit was extended in order to determine whether [the] transaction was primarily consumer or commercial in nature.” Tower v. Moss, 625 F.2d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir.1980).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.